NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

 

AGENDA                                                                                                   Page

           

          DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

1        General Manager Report

9.1     Quarterly Performance review - 30 September 2011

9.2     Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre

9.3     Review of Rating Structure

2        Director Environment and Planning Report

10.1   Draft Supplementary State of the Environment Report 2010-2011

10.2   Planning Proposal - Lot 1 DP80572 Egan Street Macksville

3        Director Engineering Services Report

11.1   Working Trial of Asphalt Zipper

11.2   Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

11.3   Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment Program

11.4   Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate    

 

 

TIME

DESCRIPTION

WHERE

OS/CC

ITEM

PAGE

08.30

Quarterly Performance Targets to 30 September 2011

CC

9.1

4

8.45

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

CC

11.2

34

9.00

 

Draft Supplementary State of the Environment Report 2010-2011

CC

 

10.1

23

 

9.30

 

Working Trial of Asphalt Zipper

 

OS

11.1

30

10.15

Planning Proposal - Lot 1 DP80572 Egan Street Macksville

OS

10.2

25

11.00

NVYSC visit by Council

OS

9.2

6

11.45

Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment Program

CC

11.3

47

12.00

Review of Rating Structure

CC

9.3

9

12.15

Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road

CC

11.4

50

12.30

LUNCH

CC

 

 

 

 

 


NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST AT MEETINGS

 

 

Name of Meeting:

 

Meeting Date:

 

Item/Report Number:

 

Item/Report Title:

 

 

 

I

 

declare the following interest:

          (name)

 

 

 

 

Pecuniary – must leave chamber, take no part in discussion and voting.

 

 

 

Non Pecuniary – Significant Conflict – Recommended that Councillor/Member leaves chamber, takes no part in discussion or voting.

 

 

Non-Pecuniary – Less Significant Conflict – Councillor/Member may choose to remain in Chamber and participate in discussion and voting.

 

For the reason that

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Email Address – council@nambucca.nsw.gov.au

 

Council’s Facsimile Number – (02) 6568 2201

 

(Instructions and definitions are provided on the next page).

 


Definitions

 

(Local Government Act and Code of Conduct)

 

 

Pecuniary – An interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated.

(Local Government Act, 1993 section 442 and 443)

 

A Councillor or other member of a Council Committee who is present at a meeting and has a pecuniary interest in any matter which is being considered must disclose the nature of that interest to the meeting as soon as practicable.

 

The Council or other member must not take part in the consideration or discussion on the matter and must not vote on any question relating to that matter. (Section 451).

 

 

Non-pecuniary – A private or personal interest the council official has that does not amount to a pecuniary interest as defined in the Act (for example; a friendship, membership of an association, society or trade union or involvement or interest in an activity and may include an interest of a financial nature).

 

If you have declared a non-pecuniary conflict of interest you have a broad range of options for managing the conflict.  The option you choose will depend on an assessment of the circumstances of the matter, the nature of your interest and the significance of the issue being dealt with.  You must deal with a non-pecuniary conflict of interest in at least one of these ways.

 

·        It may be appropriate that no action is taken where the potential for conflict is minimal.  However, council officials should consider providing an explanation of why they consider a conflict does not exist.

·        Limit involvement if practical (for example, participate in discussion but not in decision making or visa-versa).  Care needs to be taken when exercising this option.

·        Remove the source of the conflict (for example, relinquishing or divesting the personal interest that creates the conflict or reallocating the conflicting duties to another officer).

·        Have no involvement by absenting yourself from and not taking part in any debate or voting on the issue as if the provisions in section 451(2) of the Act apply (particularly if you have a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest).

 

         


General Purpose Committee                                                                                         16 November 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.1      SF820              161111         Quarterly Performance review - 30 September 2011

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Monika Schuhmacher, Executive Assistant         

 

Summary:

 

In accordance with the provisions of Section 407 of the Local Government Act 1993 I wish to report the extent to which the performance targets set in Councils 2010/2030 Management Plan have been achieved.

 

The Performance Targets for quarter to 30 September 2011 are circularised.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the extent to which the Performance Targets have been achieved for the quarter ending 30 September 2011.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

 - CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT - Quarterly Performance Targets - 30 September 2011 (27786/2011)

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Quarterly Performance review - 30 September 2011

 

 

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarterly Performance Targets - 30 September 2011 (27786/2011)

 

 


General Purpose Committee                                                                                         16 November 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.2      LF3123             161111         Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Michael Coulter, General Manager         

 

Summary:

 

A summary is not required.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the information concerning the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre be received.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may wish to make representations to the Department of Lands, its Local Member or the relevant Minister, the Hon. Katrina Hodgkinson in support of the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre.

 

Council could seek legal advice in relation to the liability of the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre to pay rates.

 

Council can provide financial assistance to the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre equivalent to its liability to pay rates.  However this will create a precedent for “similar” organisations to receive the same financial assistance.  Potential examples are the Bowraville Pioneer Community Centre and the Nambucca Valley Bridge Club.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

An inspection of the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre (NVYSC) has been arranged for the General Purpose Committee meeting at the request of the Centre.

 

It is understood the request relates to tenure and financial issues faced by the Centre in their use of their premises at 48 Ridge Street, Nambucca Heads.

 

According to the NVYSC they met with the Department of Lands in March 2011 to negotiate a lease agreement, having been without a lease since 2009 when NSW Scouts passed the old Scout Hall (now Youth Centre) back to the Crown.  In September 2011 a licence was received from the Department of Lands.

 

It is understood that the NVYSC contests a number of the proposed licence provisions including:

 

·      An obligation for the NVYSC to use their best endeavours to furnish any/all information requested in order to enable due consideration be given to any tenure beyond the expiry date of the licence.  They are concerned that due to the grant funding arrangements for their operations they will not be able to demonstrate a financial capacity for long term tenure and accordingly will be unable to meet the requirements of the license.

 

·      The payment of back rental from the time the previous lease expired, some $4,000.  Instead the NVYSC believes the funds should be applied to fixing up the gutters all of which are argued to be dangerous and falling down.

 

Pro bono legal advice received by the NVYSC also suggests that the Centre is a “charity” at law and should be entitled to claim relief for the payment of rates and charges under the Local Government Act.  Section 556 of the Local Government Act provides:

 

(1)  The following land is exempt from all rates, other than water supply special rates and sewerage special rates:

 

 

      (h)  land that belongs to a public benevolent institution or public charity and is used or occupied by the institution or charity for the purposes of the institution or charity,

 

The Department of Local Government Council Rating and Revenue Raising Manual 2007 provides that a charity in its legal sense comprises 4 principal divisions:  trusts for the advancement of religion; trusts for the advancement of education; and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding headings.

 

As to what are “other purposes beneficial to the community”, the Manual advises there is a wide ranging assortment of purposes which have been held to be within the “spirit” or “intention” of the preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601 but otherwise seem to lack a common denominator, and hence cannot be more informatively labelled.

 

The Manual indicates a “charity” is “public” within the meaning of Section 556 of the Act if its “benefits” are available to a substantial body of the public even though the number able to receive the benefits at any one time is limited.  The fact that the objects of the body are restricted to a particular class of persons does not in itself deprive the body of its character as a “public” charity.

 

In respect to rateable properties not deemed to be a public charity, such as a non-profit organisation or community club where residential or business categories are used.  At the Council’s discretion a council may provide financial assistance to these groups to pay part or all of the rates and charges.  In these circumstances a rates notice must be raised and served on the owner of the rateable land.

 

Council’s Rates Officer has previously considered the rateable status of the NVYSC and deemed that the use was not a charity and was rateable.  In 2011/2012 Council levied $1,883.07 in rates, $438 for a domestic waste service as well as water and sewerage access charges.

 

CONSULTATION:

 

There has been consultation with Mr Chris Hewgill, the Chairperson of the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre.

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no implications for the environment.

 

Social

 

The Youth Services Centre provides an important support service to the youth of the Nambucca Valley.  It is expected that Mr Hewgill will provide a briefing on the youth programs conducted by the Centre at the General Purpose Committee inspection.

 

Economic

 

There are no significant economic impacts.

 

Risk

 

There are no significant risks.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

The recommendation has no budgetary implications.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

The recommendation has no impact on working funds.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee                                                                                         16 November 2011

General Manager's Report

ITEM 9.3      SF1460            161111         Review of Rating Structure

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Jenita Ferguson, Rates Officer         

 

Summary:

 

The last significant change to Councils rate structure was undertaken in 2005/2006 following the general re-valuation base dated 1 July 2004.  This was as a result of significant fluctuations in land values across the Shire.  Prior to 2005/2006 Council’s structure was the same for all sub-categories – consisting of an ad valorem with minimum. 

 

Councils current rate structure and yield is as follows:

 

Category

Values

Count

Yield

Rate

Base /Min

Farmland

160,173,190

476

548,417.04

0.0034239

 

Farmland Base

 

475

225,102.50

 

473.90

Residential-Town

729,450,994

5374

4,190,049.60

0.00409875

690.35

Residential-Rural

102,965,820

614

514,607.28

0.00409875

690.35

Residential-Village/Estate

349,315,950

2076

1,681,079.28

0.00409875

690.35

Business-Man. Hom Comm

2,896,000

2

16,587.36

0.00572768

690.35

Business-Commercial

44,171,506

256

442,495.23

0.00922518

690.35

Business-Industrial

19,218,800

150

137,273.77

0.00572592

690.35

Business

28,144,974

177

201,754.36

0.00572658

690.35

Business-Caravan Park

12,381,000

9

122,058.59

0.00985854

690.35

TOTALS

 

 

$8,244,593.63

 

 

 

FARMLAND CATEGORY

The current Farmland structure was adopted in 2005/2006 to maintain compliance with the Local Government Act whereby the ad valorem rate had to be the lowest rate across all categories.  This Section of the Act was repealed shortly after adopting and levying rates for 2005/2006.

 

The current farmland structure comprises a base amount of $473.90 with an ad valorem rate of 0.0034239.  Total yield from the Farmland Category is $773,519.54 with average rate per assessment being $1,625.04.  Of the 476 assessments currently rated farmland, 452 would be better off being re-categorised to Residential.  There are several options available to address this anomaly.

 

Land valuations within the Farmland category are as follows:

 

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        The structure of Farmland Category be changed to incorporate the statutory minimum with ad valorem maintaining current yield.  Minimum amount to be increased by approved rate peg annually.

 

2        Council undertake a review of the current farmland criteria to better reflect higher intensity farming pursuits.  Future farmland inspections to be assessed on the revised criteria.

 

3        The Business sub-categories of Manufactured Home Community and Caravan Park be abolished and assessments previously sub-categorized Caravan Park and Manufactured Home Community be transferred to the Business category together with current yield.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1.         Review criteria for Farmland category to better reflect more intensive farming pursuits.  Ie. current beef farming criteria is minimum 40 head of cattle.  This number could be increased so as to only apply to assessments where farming is the primary income and sole purpose of the property.

2.         Consider options for abolishing the Farmland rate and re-categorising all properties residential-rural.

3.         Consider applying the statutory minimum of $442.00 together with an ad valorem.

4.         Ad Valorem rate only.

5.         Reduce Base Amount

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

1.       REVIEW FARMLAND CRITERIA

 

Attachment 1  Farmland Criteria

 

For properties to be categorised as Farmland, eligibility criteria must be met.  This criteria was last reviewed in 2007.

 

Opportunity exists for Council to again review the minimum criteria with the intention of increasing the minimum criteria to better reflect more intensive farming pursuits.

 

However, if Council were to increase farmland criteria, a review of all properties currently categorised farmland would be required to determine movement of assessments, land values and yield.  This would be a highly intensive project of which Council does not currently have the resources to undertake 476 inspections in the short time frame given. 

 

Currently, 25% of assessments are reviewed annually to ensure compliance with current criteria.  Opportunity exists in the future to review the current criteria and then apply the new criteria to future property reviews.

 

2.       RE-CATEGORISE ALL FARMLAND PROPERTIES TO RESIDENTIAL-RURAL

 

This option has not been seen before. 

 

Section 516 of The Act allows categorisation to residential:

“Land may be categorised as residential if it is a parcel of rateable land valued as one assessment and:

(a) its dominant use is for residential accommodation, or

(b) in the case of vacant land, it is zoned or otherwise designated for use under and environmental planning instrument (with or without consent) for residential purposes, or

(c) it is rural residential land.

 

This is not the preferred option as it does not reflect the current dominant land use.

 

3.       APPLY STATUTORY MINIMUM WITH AD VALOREM

 

The regulations provide for a statutory minimum currently $442.00.  Council may choose to apply the statutory minimum of $442.00 to Farmland properties together with ad valorem.

 

This option was not previously possible due to Section 520 of The Act requiring the Farmland rate be the lowest rate in the dollar.  Since the last major review of Council’s rate structure this section of The Act has been repealed.

 

The introduction of the statutory minimum will result in an increase in the ad valorem rate, however will lessen the variation of rates across differing valuations.

 

In applying the Statutory Minimum and maintaining current yield, only 14 assessments would be levied the minimum amount of $442.00 whilst all other assessments exceed the minimum.

 

Land Value

Current Rates

Statutory Minimum

Variance

9,890 *

507.76

442.00

-$65.76

120,000

884.77

574.83

-$309.94

155,000

1,004.60

742.49

-$262.11

172,000

1,062.81

823.92

-$238.89

200,000

1,158.68

958.05

-$200.63

230,000

1,261.40

1,101.76

-$159.64

250,000

1,329.88

1,197.56

-$132.32

280,000

1,432.59

1,341.27

-$91.32

300,000

1,501.07

1,437.07

$-64.00

330,000

1,603.79

1,580.78

-$23.01

360,000

1,706.50

1,724.49

$17.99

390,000

1,809.22

1,868.19

$58.97

420,000

1,911.94

2,011.90

$99.96

455,000

2,031.77

2,179.56

$147.79

477,000

2,107.10

2,284.94

$177.84

521,000

2,257.75

2,495.72

$237.97

580,000

2,459.76

2,778.34

$318.58

680,000

2,802.15

3,257.36

$455.21

767,000

3,100.03

3,674.11

$574.08

945,000

3,709.49

4,526.78

$817.29

1,600,000 **

5,952.14

7,664.38

$1,712.24

 

The shaded area represents the majority of assessments within the Farmland Category.

* The lowest land value within the farmland category

** The highest land value within the farmland category.

 

The minimum amount may be increased by the approved rate peg annually.

 

4.       WHOLLY AD VALOREM RATE

 

The ad valorem amount of a rate is an amount in the dollar determined for a specified year by the council and applied to the rateable land value, except as provided by The Act.

 

The making of a wholly ad valorem causes greater fluctuations between rates payable and places an increased burden on properties with high values whilst decreasing the contribution of rates from properties with lower land values despite receiving the similar if not the same services.

 

Maintaining the current yield equates to an ad valorem rate of 0.00482769.

 

The table below illustrates the excessive variations of a wholly ad valorem rate when applied to the land valuations.

 

Land Value

Current Rates

Wholly Ad Valorem

9,890

507.76

47.75

120,000

884.77

579.32

155,000

1,004.60

748.29

172,000

1,062.81

830.36

200,000

1,158.68

965.54

230,000

1,261.40

1,110.37

250,000

1,329.88

1,206.92

280,000

1,432.59

1,351.75

300,000

1,501.07

1,448.31

330,000

1,603.79

1,593.14

360,000

1,706.50

1,737.97

390,000

1,809.22

1,882.80

420,000

1,911.94

2,027.63

455,000

2,031.77

2,196.60

477,000

2,107.10

2,302.81

521,000

2,257.75

2,515.23

580,000

2,459.76

2,800.06

680,000

2,802.15

3,282.83

767,000

3,100.03

3,702.84

945,000

3,709.49

4,562.17

1,600,000

5,952.14

7,724.30

 

 

5.       REDUCE BASE AMOUNT

 

Consideration may be given to reducing the base amount of the Farmland category.

 

A base amount can be used to flatten out the incidence of excessive variations within a category where land values can vary significantly.

 

It should be noted that the base amount must reflect a quantifiable cost per property that represents the basic administrative costs of council and from which all properties benefit, regardless of their rateable land value.  A base amount, equitably determined, can enable council to charge all properties subject to the rate a sufficient levy to cover the cost of common services, as well as basic administration costs.  For the purpose of this report and modelling scenarios, a base amount of $320.00 has been assumed.

 

Section 500 of The Act provides that the yield generated from the base amount must not exceed 50% of the yield generated from the ad valorem component.

 

In maintaining the current yield and applying a base of $320.00 and ad valorem of 0.00387883 to following comparison is provided:

 

Land Value

Current Rates

$320- Base & ad valorem

9,890

507.76

358.36

120,000

884.77

785.46

155,000

1,004.60

921.22

172,000

1,062.81

987.16

200,000

1,158.68

1,095.77

230,000

1,261.40

1,212.13

250,000

1,329.88

1,289.71

280,000

1,432.59

1,406.07

300,000

1,501.07

1,483.65

330,000

1,603.79

1,600.01

360,000

1,706.50

1,716.38

390,000

1,809.22

1,832.74

420,000

1,911.94

1,949.11

455,000

2,031.77

2,084.87

477,000

2,107.10

2,170.20

521,000

2,257.75

2,340.87

580,000

2,459.76

2,569.72

680,000

2,802.15

2,957.60

767,000

3,100.03

3,295.06

945,000

3,709.49

3,985.49

1,600,000

5,952.14

6,526.13

 

 

 

BUSINESS-MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS-CARAVAN PARK

 

OPTIONS:

·      Maintain the status quo;

·      Re-categorise sub-categories Caravan Park and Manufactured Home Community to Business category together with yield.

 

Correspondence received from the Department of Local Government on 3 March 2009 suggests council may not comply with the Local Government Act in regards to sub-categorisation of the Business categories Manufactured Park Home and Caravan Park.  Approximately 50 NSW councils received similar correspondence.  During discussion with Damien Walsh, Senior Finance Officer, Division of Local Government in relation to the sub-categories, Mr Walsh advised the correspondence did not intend to claim Council was in breach of The Act, but merely serve as a reminder for Council to review its rating structure and ensure Council’s ability to defend its structure should a challenge arise. Refer attachment 3.

 

It should also be noted that Mr Walsh was unable to provide examples of any previous rulings in regard to the application of sub-categorisation of the Business category.

 

Council at the time reviewed the sub-categories and resolved to maintain the current structure.

 

Council again has the option to review the sub-categories Caravan Park and Manufactured Home Community and consider transferring the assessments and yield concerned into the Business category.

 

This would simplify the current structure in having only 3 Business categories:

·      Business

·      Business-Industrial Estate

·      Business-CBD

 

This structure would enhance Council’s justification in regard to Section 529(2)(d) and ‘centre of activity’ requirement.

 

Currently 9 properties are within the sub-category Caravan Park, and two sub-categorised Manufacture Home Community.  Yield from these sub-categories is:

 

Business-Caravan Park                                                                     $122,058.59

Business-Manufactured Home                                                             $16,587.36

TOTAL YIELD                                                                                 $138,645.95

 

The Manufactured Home and Caravan Park sub-categories were introduced by Council in 2003/2004 with the aim of generating an equitable rate contribution based on the number of permanent home sites within the property.

 

In relation to the Manufactured Home sub-category, Councils planning records list Newville Cottage park as currently having 42 permanent sites, whilst Faringdon has 190 sites.

 

Rates levied under the current structure are as follows:

 

 

Land Value

Current Rates

Number of dwellings

Contribution per dwelling

Newville

746,000

$4,272.85

42

$101.73

Faringdon

2,160,000

$12,314.51

190

$64.81

TOTAL YIELD

$16,587.36

 

 

 

The ad valorem rate for Business is 0.00572658 whilst Manufactured Home Community Sub-category is 0.00572768, and Caravan Park 0.00985854.

 

In transferring the yield from the Manufactured Home and Caravan Park assessments to the Business category, the total yield of Business category is $340,400.31 over 188 assessments resulting in an ad valorem rate of 0.00704454.  This results in a significant decrease in rates for the Caravan Parks and an increase in rates for the previously sub-categorised Manufactured Home assessments as well as an increased burden on the pre-existing business assessments.

 

Currently the average rate for assessments within the Business-Caravan Park sub-category are:

 

CURRENT YIELD                   Divided by Number of Assessments                      Average Rate

$122,058.59                                                      9                                                   $13,562.07

 

Current average rate for assessments within the Business category are:

 

CURRENT YIELD                   Divided by Number of Assessments                      Average Rate

$201,754.36                                                    177                                                  $1,139.86

 

Following re-categorisation of assessments and movement of $122,058.59 income to Business category:

 

COMBINED YIELD                 Divided by number of assessments                      Average Rate

$340,400.31                                                    188                                                  $1,810.64

 

Clearly these figures will vary dependant upon individual land valuations.

 

In applying the new ad valorem rate of 0.00704454 the change in rates for properties previously sub-categorized Caravan Park and Manufactured Home Community is illustrated below:

 

 

Previous Sub-category

Land Value

Current Rates

Business

Rates

11145606

Caravan Park

711,000

7,009.42

5,008.67

11145850

Caravan Park

660,000

6,506.64

4,649.40

11167666

Caravan Park

1,460,000

14,393.47

10,285.03

11168808

Caravan Park

1,160,000

11,435.91

8,171.67

11177360

Caravan Park

1,480,000

14,590.64

10,425.92

11180729

Caravan Park

640,000

6,309.47

4,508.51

11209141

Caravan Park

2180000

21,491.62

15,357.10

11188379

Caravan Park

2,470,000

24,350.59

17,400.01

11201444

Caravan Park

1,620,000

15,970.83

11,412.15

11168476

Manufactured Home Comm.

746,000

4,272.85

5,255.23

11159087

Manufactured Home Comm.

2,150,000

12,314.51

15,145.76

TOTAL YIELD

$138,645.95

$107,619.44

 

The difference in yield generated from the assessments previously categorised Manufactured Park and Caravan Park of $31,026.51 will be apportioned over the assessments already within the Business category. 

 

Further analysis of the properties already categorized Business and the effect on valuations is illustrated below:

 

Land Value

Before

After

56,100

690.35

690.35

79,200

690.35

690.35

102,000

690.35

718.54

123,000

704.37

866.48

182,000

1,042.24

1,282.11

236,000

1,351.47

1,662.51

288,000

1,649.26

2,028.83

308,000

1,763.79

2,169.72

495,000

2,834.66

3,487.05

570,000

3,264.15

4,015.39

711,000

4,071.60

5,008.67

 

The range of land values within the Business category after categorisation of the Manufactured Home and Caravan Park assessments to Business are illustrated in the chart below:

 

Given that the majority of land values within the Business category are less than $200,000 and the majority of high-end land values are attributed to the Caravan Parks and Manufactured Home assessments, the impact on individual accounts will predominantly be felt by those assessments with values greater than $200,000.

 

RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES

 

The percentage yield derived from the minimum amount currently exceeds the percentage yield generated from the ad valorem yield.  Whilst this does not contravene the Act it is not the intention of the Act to generate majority of income from the minimum.

 

There are 3 sub-categories of the Residential category: Town, Village/Estate and Rural.  Council has historically maintained the same ad valorem rate and structure across the 3 sub-categories.

 

The current structure of the residential categories comprises a minimum of $690.35 with ad valorem 0.00409875.  Total Yield is $6,383,004.64, of which $3,876,315.25 (or 61%) is generated from the minimum.

 

Minimum rates aid in flattening out excessive variations in rates where land values vary significantly.

 

OPTIONS

·      Maintain the status quo.

·      Reduce Minimums to Statutory minimum

·      Introduce a base with ad valorem

 

Reduce Minimums to Statutory Minimum

Reducing the minimum to the Statutory minimum, currently $442.00, whilst maintaining the current yield for each sub-category will not only increase the ad valorem rate, but also result in significant variations in the ad valorem rate between the sub-categories (refer below).  Ultimately a broader variance in the rates payable across the sub-categories will result.

 

Category

Values

Count

Yield

Rate

Min

Residential-Town

729,450,994

5374

4,190,049.60

0.00544775

442.00

Residential-Rural

102,965,820

614

514,607.28

0.00465121

442.00

Residential-Village/Estate

349,315,950

2076

1,681,079.28

0.00485888

442.00

TOTALS

 

 

$6,385,736.16

 

 

 

The variation in ad valorem may better reflect the current service levels provided to properties in the differing sub-categories. Ie. Residential-Town with higher ad valorem rate, whilst Residential-Rural has the lowest.

 

Introduce a Base with ad valorem

A base amount needs to represent a “quantifiable cost per property” that represents the basic administrative costs of council and from which all properties benefit, regardless of their rateable land value.

 

Whilst The Act provides for “base amounts” the overriding characteristic of local government rating is that rates will be primarily and predominantly determined via the ad valorem method.  Hence, income derived from the base amount must not produce more than 50% of the total amount payable by the levying of the rate.

 

A base amount can be used to “flatten” out the incidence of rates across ratepayers where land values vary greatly within categories of ratepayers or where there is disproportionate variations arising from a new valuation.

 

Attachment 2   Comparison of differing base amounts for Residential Rates highlights the variance in rates when varying base amounts are applied.  It should be noted that a base amount of $400 or greater will result in non-compliance with The Act, whilst the lesser base amounts will create a broader variation in rates payable over differing land values.  Therefore this structure is not the preferred option.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

General Manager

Manager Financial Services

Division of Local Government

Mid North Coast Revenue Professionals

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There is no impact on the environment.

 

Social

Maintain consistency and equity amongst community – both individuals and businesses.

 

Economic

Re-distribution of rate yield will result in varying impacts across ratepayers within Business category.

 

Risk

Possible legal challenge if Council is found to contravene Section 529 of The Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

Current yield is maintained, therefore there is no effect on current or future budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

There is no impact on working funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

31371/2011 - Attachment 1

 

2View

31373/2011 - Attachment 2

 

3View

31414/2011 - Attachment 3

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Review of Rating Structure

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Review of Rating Structure

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Review of Rating Structure

 

 


General Purpose Committee                                                                                         16 November 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 10.1    SF135              161111         Draft Supplementary State of the Environment Report 2010-2011

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Jacqui Ashby, Environmental Compliance Officer         

 

Summary:

 

Council is required to prepare a State of the Environment Report each year, this year being a supplementary report to the 2008/2009 Comprehensive SoE. The Draft SOE report was on exhibition for 28 days closing on the 10 November 2011.  At the time of writing this report 8 November 2011 there were no submissions received.  Should any submission be received after the closing of the Agenda a late item will be prepared and submitted at the General Purpose Committee meeting on 16 November 2011.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Draft 2010/2011 Supplementary State of the Environment Report be endorsed for submission to the Department of Local Government.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

The Draft SoE report not be endorsed.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Department of Local Government issued on 8 August, a Circular (11-18) that advised Group 2 and 3 Councils Annual Reporting Requirements are set out in the historical version of the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) (section 428) and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (the Regulation) (Part 9, Division 7), and Group 2 and 3 councils are required to prepare a supplementary State of the Environment report for 2010-11 and submit this to the Division by 30 November 2011 (see section 428(2)(c) of the Act and clause 217(2) of the Regulation (historical version)).Therefore this year’s report will be a supplementary report.

 

The draft report was missing some state agency data which has been added since the exhibition period. This is due to the staggering of group 1, 2 & 3 Councils to the new IPR requirements and many state agencies had not been prepared for group 2&3 requests for information.

 

Notwithstanding, the supplementary report for the 2010/2011 year has included some community/ stakeholder input and has been placed on public exhibition in accordance with Council’s resolution in November 2007.

 

This 2010/2011 supplementary report is an update of the eight environmental sectors: land, water, air, biodiversity, waste and resource recovery, noise, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal heritage and this year includes a new section called 'living sustainably'. This is the old human settlement section without the community data as this is reported on in a separate community report and thus, will reduce duplication.

This supplementary report is to be read in conjunction with the comprehensive State of The Environment Report from 2008-2009.

 

Next years SoE will be a comprehensive report in line with the new IPR requirements. For the past two years representatives from Councils falling within the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority's area, Tweed Shire Council down to Port Macquarie – Hastings Council, have been working with the Department of Premier and Cabinet to facilitate a regional SoE. Next years SoE will be a regional Comprehensive State of the Environment Report, and will be produced once every four years. From 2013 there is no requirement for Councils to produce supplementary (between comprehensive years) reports.

 

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              Director Environment and Planning

·              Manager Health and Building

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

This is a report on the state of the Nambucca Shire’s environment.

 

Social

 

The report is designed for the community to read and understand what the state of the environment is like in their Shire with clear remediation actions.

 

Economic

 

There is no economic assessment.

 

Risk

 

No risk identified.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no perceived direct impacts on budgets.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No variation is sought.

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee                                                                                         16 November 2011

Director Environment & Planning's Report

ITEM 9.5      SF1541            161111         Planning Proposal - Lot 1 DP80572 Egan Street Macksville

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Grant Nelson, Strategic Planner         

 

Summary:

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of a planning proposal request to rezone Lot 1 DP805752 Egan Street Macksville from RU1 Primary Production to R1 General Residential. The planning proposal request has been made by Geoff Smyth Consulting on behalf of the land owner.

 

NOTE: This matter requires a “Planning Decision” referred to in Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the General Manager to record the names of each Councillor supporting and opposing the decision

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the Planning Proposal not be supported at this time as:

 

·      flood modelling in the area is presently being up dated to comply with state government policies and guidelines;

 

·      Council is yet to prepare a Local Growth Management Strategy - Residential Land and preliminary estimates indicate there is sufficient residential land available in Macksville and the proposed Future Growth Area of South Macksville/Congarinni for the medium term;

 

·      the proposed residential area has insufficient area to accommodate buffers to rural land and still provide feasible residential development.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

a        Council could support the Planning Proposal and it be forwarded to Department of Planning for a Gateway Determination in accordance with section 56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

b        Prior to proceeding with the planning proposal the applicant be requested to address the outstanding issues identified in this report.

 

c        Prior to proceeding with the planning proposal the applicant be requested to pay the scheduled fee for a rezoning application.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Property and Filling Background

 

The subject land (Lot 1 DP805752) is zoned RU1 Primary Production and is approximately 2.196Ha in size. Should this land be rezoned, then based on density of 12 Lots/HA the site has the potential to accommodate approximately 26 residential lots.

 

In 1991 the land was subject to alleged unauthorised filling and investigation by Council. The property owner at the time advised Council that the filling was for the purposes of a stock flood refuge. At that time Council sought legal advice which determined the stock flood refuge could be considered ancillary to the agricultural use of the site and therefore did not require consent. No regulatory action was taken.

 

 

Existing Zoned Residential Land in Macksville

 

Council has over 195HA of existing zoned residential land within Macksville (including infill development on lots > 1000m2). Given an approximate density of 12 Lots per Hectare there are approximately 1,774 Lots available within Macksville the majority being available at South Macksville Release Area and parcels of land at north Macksville (Uriti Road). Using an average household size of 2.4 persons Macksville has enough zoned land available for 4,250 persons. Using present average annual growth rates of 1.7%, this land should accommodate Macksville for over 20 years.

 

In addition to this the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy has identified a growth area of approximately 77HA (2,217 persons) at South Macksville.

 

Based on these calculations it is considered unnecessary to release any additional residential land at this point in time. There is sufficient zoned land available in Macksville for the short to medium term planning period and additional land has already be identified for release if required. Council staff will review the status of land supply when the Residential Release strategy is prepared.

 

Section 117 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

Section 117 Directions are required to be addressed when preparing a planning proposal. The following brief statements identify inconsistencies with the 117 directions.

 

1.2 Rural Zones

 

This direction states a planning proposal must :

 

a        Not rezone land from a rural zone to a residential, business, industrial, village or tourist zone;

b        Not contain provisions that will increase the permissible density of land within a rural zone;

 

Although the extent of impact on the availability of rural zone is generally minor a number of matters require further consideration.

 

·              Allowing 24 additional residential lots to adjoin a rural area may contribute to land use conflicts and the proposal does not address required buffer distances within Councils DCP 2010.

·              The land presently provides flood refuge for stock, and the proposal is silent on an alternative stock flood refuge or potential cumulative impacts should a new stock flood refuge be proposed.

 

1.5 Rural Lands

 

Although the rural area affected is relatively minor in the context of the broader Nambucca Local Government Area (LGA), a number of matters have not been adequately addressed in the planning proposal.

 

·              The proposal must be consistent with the Rural Planning Principles listed in State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008. The applicant has not addressed these principles within the planning proposal and the planning proposal is not consistent with a strategy.

 

2.2 Coastal Protection

 

The Planning Proposal has not adequately addressed the provisions of the of NSW coastal Policy; Coastal Design Guidelines; manual relating to the NSW Coastline Management Manual and more recent publications as required by this direction.

 

4.1 Acid Sulphate soils

 

The local planning authority cannot prepare a planning proposal relating to land use intensifications on a site unless it has considered a study into the presence of acid sulphate soils. The land is classified as class 3 and 4 acid sulphate soils and no study has been completed to accompany the proposal.

 

5.1 Implementation of Regional Strategies

 

The planning proposal is not consistent with the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy for the following reasons:

 

·              The proposal is not identified as an agreed growth area within the mid north coast regional strategy.

·              The land is identified as Regionally Significant Farmland, pursuant with the strategy the land zoning should protect the lands agricultural values, the strategy indicates that land mapped as regionally significant farmland should not be available for future urban purposes;

·              The land does not appear to have an adequate size to provide a buffer between to the adjoining rural zone and any proposed residential allotments;

 

4.3 Flood Prone Land

 

Councils existing Floodplain Risk Management Plan identifies that the site is affected by the 1:100 ARI flood level of approximately 3.55m AHD and the site was previously filled to a level between 3.5m and 3.6m AHD.

 

The planning proposal is accompanied by a brief flood report prepared by De Groot Benson (15 Feb 2011) which concludes the following:

 

·              Flood plain storage is not affected by the development, as it was considered in the latest flood study for the lower Nambucca;

·              The proposed development will not unduly affect flood flow behaviour around the development for similar reasons stated above;

·              The proposed dwelling floor levels should be re-evaluated in the event that future studies are adopted by Council.

 

It is noted that the RTA in conjunction with the Office of Environment and Heritage are preparing a new flood study for Macksville and its surrounds. This flood study will take into account predicted impacts associated with climate change and the new highway. The results of this study will be available to Council, which after review will be used to update Council’s flood risk management plan. Any decision relating LEP amendments in existing flood prone land within Macksville Floodplain are considered premature until the current studies are complete.

 

As discussed earlier in this report, there is an extensive amount of existing zoned residential land in Macksville and the majority of this land is located outside of flood prone areas, with flood free access and services. It would not be in Council's interest to pursue or encourage development in potentially constrained areas where it is unnecessary to do so.

 

Conclusion

 

The rezoning of this land from rural to residential appears to be unwarranted at this stage. Further consideration of this matter could be undertaken when Council prepares it’s Local Growth Management Strategy - Residential Land.

 

It is noted that the preparation of this residential release strategy is not a priority at this stage due to limited staff resources and the fact that new flood modelling is presently being prepared for the Nambucca LGA. Once the new flood study is completed, the preparation of the Local Growth Management Strategy Residential Land may be afforded a higher priority.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              Director of Environment and Planning

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

The subject land has been cleared and filled in the past. The cumulative environmental impacts of any future development on the site would need to be addressed.

 

Social

 

It is anticipated that adjoining residents to this land would not support an application for rezoning as it would impact on their present rural outlook.

 

Increasing the density of dwellings in the Egan Street area would be likely to place additional pressures on emergency services to ensure the safety of residents during flood events.

 

Economic

 

Progressing this proposal prior to the finalisation of the new flood study and Local Growth Management Strategy - Residential Land may incur costs that cannot be justified.

 

Risk

 

If Council supports an LEP amendment at an inappropriate location or prior to the up to date information being available it may have implications on Councils exemptions to liability under Section 733 of the Local Government Act should the subject land subsequent development be impacted by flooding. 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Applicants for planning proposal are required to pay an application fee and the costs associated with any other required study.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

No funds have been allocated for private rezonings..

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.  


General Purpose Committee                                                                                         16 November 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.1    SF826              161111         Working Trial of Asphalt Zipper

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Noel Chapman, Manager Civil Works         

 

Summary:

 

A new type of asphalt reclaimer (Asphalt Zipper) has recently been introduced into Australia.

 

This machine has potential to improve Council’s treatment of large pavement failures and broad scale road rehabilitation.

 

A two week trial hire has been arranged to determine the machine capabilities and cost comparisons.

 

An inspection as part of the GPC has been arranged.

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council note the trial of the Asphalt Zipper.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

There are no options.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The Asphalt Zipper has been in use of the US for many years.

 

A new machine has recently been imported into Australia and a two week trial has been arranged.  A copy of the brochure is attached.

 

The machine is a portable reclaimer that attaches to a front end loader bucket.  The Zipper rips and mixes existing road pavements (including both spray seals and asphalt surfacing).  Depending on the quality of the mixed material it can either reused or discarded.

 

The two week trial will be used to treat large pavement failures in both urban and rural roads plus various options for the full rehabilitation of rural roads with a view to replacing the current method of cement stabilisation.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              Director Engineering Services

·              Works Staff

·              Manager Assets

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no issues as a result of this report.

 


Social

 

There are no issues as a result of this report.

 

Economic

 

There are no issues as a result of this report.

 

Risk

 

There are no issues as a result of this report.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

Funding included in current budget for Heavy Patching operations.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

 

 

Attachments:

1View

28105/2011 - Brochure of Asphalt Zipper

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Working Trial of Asphalt Zipper

 



General Purpose Committee                                                                                         16 November 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.2    SF593              161111         Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Keith Williams, Manager Technical Services         

 

 

Summary:

 

In a report presented to council at the General Purpose Committee meeting on 17 August 2011 on the flood investigations – Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment, and following the presentation from the GHD representative, council resolved:

 

“1       That Council note the receipt of the Flood Investigation – Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment Report and presentation.

 

2        That Council received a further report at the October General Purpose Committee Meeting to consider and establish appropriate drainage design standards based on the information provided in the GHD document.”

 

This report provides recommendations for Council to consider with regard to flood mitigation measures initially for the effected properties within the Seaview Street catchment and for future standards of urban drainage performance within the Shire.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council adopt the option to retain the existing and approved drainage system within the Seaview street Stormwater drainage catchment which was constructed to the standards and knowledge of the day.

 

2        That Council adopt the option to retain the existing and approved drainage system within all other established stormwater drainage catchment areas within the Nambucca Shire Council LGA which was constructed to the standards and knowledge of the day.

 

3        That Council adopt a drainage design standard in accordance with the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) and AUS-SPEC#1 Design Specifications September 2002 for future urban developments as follows:

 

·      100 years for the ‘major’ system in all developments

·      20 or 50 years for intensely developed business, commercial and industrial areas

·      10 years for other businesses, commercial and industrial areas and intensely developed residential areas

·      5 years for other residential areas and open spaces

·      In addition, where a development is designed in such a way that the major system flows involve surcharge across private property, then the underground system (both pipes and inlets) shall be designed to permit flows into and contain flows having an ARI of 100 years from the upstream catchment which would otherwise flow across the property.

 

4        That in accordance with the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) and AUS-SPEC#1 Design Specifications September 2002 future developments shall define a surcharge path for systems even where a 100 year Annual Recurrence Interval flow can be maintained within the system.

 

5        That in accordance with the Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) and AUS-SPEC#1 Design Specifications September 2002 future developments are to provide easements within private property over pipe systems and surcharge paths.

 

6        That Council instigate a detailed stormwater management plan for the Valla Beach, Nambucca Heads, Macksville, Bowraville and Scotts Head as funding and resources become available which explore options and opportunities for funding towards flood conveyance improvements.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

1        That Council accept the recommendations.

2        That Council not accept the recommendations.

3        Adopt different standards.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Drainage design standards for future urban development

 

Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) has been adopted Australia wide as the best guide to flood estimation.  AR&R suggests surveys of government bodies and consultants have indicated that the most commonly used design ARI values for a street drainage system are:

 

·              100 years for the ‘major’ system in all developments

·              20 or 50 years for intensely developed business, commercial and industrial areas

·              10 years for other businesses, commercial and industrial areas and intensely developed residential areas

·              5 years for other residential areas and open spaces.

 

In addition, where a development is designed in such a way that the major system flows involve surcharge across private property then the underground system (both pipes and inlets) shall be designed to permit flows into and contain flows having an ARI of 100 years from the upstream catchment which would otherwise flow across the property.  A surcharge path shall be defined for systems even where 100 year ARI flows can be maintained within the system.  Easements are to be provided in private property over pipe systems and surcharge paths.

 

Following a storm event in June 2008 Council engaged GHD to initially prepare a report on the catchment area in the vicinity of Nambucca, Bismark and Piggott Streets, Nambucca Heads.  Subsequent to this initial report Council commissioned GHD to prepare a more detailed report to identify deficiencies in the existing system and options (including preliminary costings) for design standards and upgrading of the drainage system.

 

A representative of GHD presented the findings of the Phase 2 report with a breakdown of flood mitigation costing for Council’s consideration at the General Purpose Committee meeting on 17 August 2011.

 

The Phase 2 report suggests the existing pipe system has an appropriate capacity equivalent to the 2 year ARI storm event and that the trunk drainage system is exceeded in the 5 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event. 

 

The existing drainage system was constructed to the standards and knowledge of the day where the contributing catchment consisted of low density housing with a clear flow path in place for larger storm events.  Subsequent subdivisions of residential land have created a higher density of housing resulting in the net loss of pervious open space, this in turn accelerates the rate of discharge to the drainage infrastructure of the catchment to a point where the pipe system can no longer cope with a 5 year ARI storm event. 

 

The GHD report estimates the cost of stormwater pipe augmentation to be $1.88 million which would then cater for the 100 year ARI Storm event.  The report deals with an isolated catchment that was brought to fruition due to the flooding of houses in June 2008 and funding is competing with a large number of other projects requiring similar funding such as the land slippages along Riverside Drive.  Nambucca Shire Council’s LGA contains numerous individual stormwater catchments that would have been constructed and installed to the standards of the day.  This report is limited to an isolated catchment area being Seaview Street and a change or adoption of a new standard would have implications Shire wide.

 

 

Development Options

 

As part of the study scope a number of modelling options were developed, these included:

 

·              Sizing a stormwater pipes for the 100-year ARI event

·              Sizing a stormwater pipes for the 5, 10, 20 and 50-year ARI event together with overland flow capacity up to the 100-yr ARI event

·              Providing upstream detention storage.

 

The objective of each of these scenarios was the reduce the overland flows along the main trunk line, and increase the flows into the trunk line, thus reducing the impact of stormwater to affected low lying properties.

 

The analysis of the mitigation options resulted in improvements in both the performance of the drainage network and the reduction in flood inundation levels in the study area;

 

·              the drainage line upgrade scenarios were developed for the 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 year ARI design storm scenarios and identified a number of areas requiring the upgrading of stormwater pits

 

·              the upgrading of the trunk main in each of these scenarios effectively reduces the overland flows and inundation levels.

 

The GHD report identified seven of the eleven properties investigated in the report are prone to flood inundation for the full range of 5 year ARI to 100 year ARI storm events.  These properties are all adjacent to the natural gully of the catchment and the piped drainage systems.  These sites are by no means in a prime location and were no doubt priced accordingly knowing the risks of building adjacent to a gully.

 

A further scenario was developed in which the existing pipe system was to remain unaltered and upstream detention storage would be sized to cater for the 100-year event. The detention storage option required an approximate total storage volume of 3,400 m3 (or equivalent to 340 box culvert sections with dimension 2.4 x 1.7 x 2.44) to detain the 100-year ARI storm event using a 375 mm diameter outlet pipe, under the Zingara Close / Nambucca Street intersection.

 

Detention storage volume requirements for design ARI storms

 

Event ARI Basin volume required (m3)

 

    5             1730

  10              2020

  20              2400

  50              2900

100              3400

 

The results from the HEC-RAS analysis of the mitigation options were used in order to approximate revised annual flood damages and to perform a cost-benefit analysis of the mitigation options. The costs of the mitigation options are compared to the cost of the existing “do-nothing” scenario in order to determine the benefit of performing the upgrade over a period of 20 years. The results are listed below:

 


Cost Benefit Results

 

Option                            Cost                            Flood Damage                            Cost Benefit

                                      Saving                 

100 year Design           $1.2 M                           $1.05 M                                            0.89

50 Year Design             $0.98 M                          $1.03 M                                             1.05

20 Year Design              $0.96 M                          $0.99 M                                            1.03

10 year Design              $0.69 M                          $0.87 M                                            1.26

5 Year Design                $0.63 M                          $0.86 M                                             1.38

Detention option            $1.2 M                            $1.05 M                                            0.91

 

When considering cost benefit results there is a known cost of installing flood mitigations measures (additional stormwater pipes or detention) commencing in the vicinity of $630,000 to $1.18 million versus the unknown cost of flood damage to a small number of properties.

 

Workshopped Solution – 20 year ARI Design

 

The final component of the GHD investigation brief was to prepare a preliminary concept design for the 20-year ARI design criteria which encompassed an upgrade to the drainage catchment between the intersection of Nambucca Street and Zingara Close through to Bismark Street.  (In addition upgrading of pipes and pits upstream of the Pit 3-25 in Nambucca Street to Pelican Crescent has been proposed to ensure that overland flow does not bypass the downstream pipes and circumvent the downstream upgrade works.)  Drainage management for the catchment downstream of Bismark Street would need to cater for events up to, and including, the 100-year ARI event.(AR&R Major)

 

The Preliminary concept design is attached for information.

 

The proposed increase in stormwater pipe diameters is considerable in comparison to the existing pipe diameters.  To cater for an increase in drainage structure it will be necessary to widen the easements and to adjust pipe locations to cater for any proposed improvements on private lands.

 

Drainage design standards for existing urban developments

 

The existing drainage system within the Seaview Street stormwater drainage catchment was constructed to the standards and knowledge of the day.  (Existing urban developments have been designed to accept stormwater discharge for a range of events).  However, with continued development many pipes are insufficiently sized and discharge paths are either nonexistent or have obstacles such as fences, buildings and landscaping in place.

 

Council may elect to adopt the “do nothing approach” in lieu of funding an upgrade to the drainage infrastructure (estimated to cost between $630,000 and $1.18 million depending on ARI adopted).  However, it may result in ongoing claims against council for flood damage to property for the drainage system between Zingara Close and Bismark Street.  The Average Annual Damage is estimated at $150,000. Over a 20-year period, this has a Net Present Value of $1.8 million.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

·              Director Engineering Services

·              GHD

·              Manager Civil Works

·              Manager Assets

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

There are no impacts as a result of this report.

 

Social

 

There are no immediate issues as a result of this report, however, future storm events can cause flooding of private property resulting in stress and financial loss for residents.

 

Economic

 

There are no immediate economic issues as a result of this report.  However, if Council wishes to adopt a higher design of standard of flood mitigation there will be a significant impact on future budgets.  Conversely the “does nothing” option could result in increased damages claims.

 

Risk

 

Future storm events could result in flooding of private property.  Increased pipe capacities can mitigate this risk.

 

This report is limited to one catchment.  A change of standard would have implications Shire wide.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There is no impact on the current budget unless Council is determined to upgrade the drainage system.

 

Incorporation of a design storm in the Stormwater Asset Management Plan will impact on future budgets.

 

There has been no provision made in the 2011/12 budget to undertake drainage works

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Funds could be sourced from a stormwater levy or working funds.

 

Attachments:

1View

21588/2011 - Summary and Conclusions

 

2View

21590/2011 - Table 1 - Existing Scenario Peak Flow Results

 

3View

21591/2011 - Table 3 - Existing Conditions Inundation Levels

 

4View

21593/2011 - Table 6 - Mitigation Inundation Improvements

 

5View

28240/2011 - Proposed Layout 20 Year ARI Option

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 




General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 



General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Nambucca Heads Flood Investigation - Phase 2 Seaview Street Catchment

 

 


General Purpose Committee                                                                                         16 November 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.3    SF788              161111         Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment Program

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Peter Baynes, Manager Assets         

 

Summary:

 

Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments (WaSIP) are provided by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to assist councils improve waste and sustainability outcomes across their local government areas.  Council’s initial strategy for allocation of WaSIP funds focussed on installation of energy efficient lighting.  It is opportune to review this strategy and consider options for suitable projects for allocation of future payments.   The purpose of this report is to gauge an indication of Council’s preferred direction for allocation of these payments.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council endorse the proposed projects as options for the allocation of future Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments.

 

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Council may suggest alternate projects for consideration.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments (WaSIP) are provided by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) to assist councils invest in additional actions and programs that improve waste and sustainability outcomes across their local government areas.   These payments are allocated by councils based on local priorities and WaSIP guidelines.

 

Payments are made on the basis of Council meeting standards set by the OEH.  These standards relate to matters such as provision of recycling services, collection and return of baseline data on waste management, development of a Strategic Waste Action Plan and a “Waste Not” Development Control Plan.  Nambucca Shire Council complies with these standards through membership of the Midwaste Regional Waste Forum. Midwaste consists of eight individual councils from Great Lakes in the south to Coffs Harbour in the north. Representatives from each council meet monthly to form a voluntary regional waste group. Midwaste is funded by the OEH along with member councils contributing to the group’s efforts in reducing the amount of waste going to landfill through regional co-operation and partnerships.

 

The focus of Midwaste is to provide best practice waste management, resource recovery and diversion of waste materials from landfill across the region by utilising the principles of sustainability as a driver in attaining the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (“WARR”) Strategy.

 

Council has received payments of $34,700 in 2009/10 and $69,500 in 2010/11.  These payments have been utilised to install energy efficient lighting at the Council administration building, Nambucca Heads and Macksville Libraries and the Nambucca Heads Entertainment Centre.  Anticipated savings as a result of these installations are $2,500 per annum at the administration building and $1,150 per annum at the libraries and entertainment centre.

 

Council has received payment of $108,000k for 2011/12.  It is expected that funding will progressively increase to approximately $200,000 by the end of the current program in 2014/15.  The initial strategy for allocation of WaSIP funds focussed on installation of energy efficient lighting.  Opportunities for further installations of these lights are becoming limited so it is opportune to consider options for suitable projects for allocation of future payments.  It is not intended that these payments be used in lieu of Council’s working funds but rather that they are utilised to fund additional programs or infrastructure which provide improved sustainability outcomes.

 

Possible projects for allocation of future funds could include:

 

·      Solar power at selected Council facilities

·      Solar heating and/or pool blankets at Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre

·      “Green” pumps at Macksville Memorial Aquatic Centre

·      Energy efficient lighting in outdoors areas and at sporting fields

·      Purchase of hybrid vehicle(s)

·      Employment of sustainability officer

·      Public place recycling

·      Foreshore and/or riverbank rehabilitation

·      Purchase of “green” power

 

Individual projects would be identified each year as detail of actual funding becomes available and any specific eligibility guidelines are issued.  The purpose of this report is to gauge an indication of Council’s preferred direction for allocation of these funds.

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

General Manager

Director Engineering Services

Waste Management Officer

Property Officer

Technical Offer Assets

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

 

Implementation of the proposed projects is expected to return favourable impacts on Council’s environmental sustainability.  Specific impacts will vary from project to project but may include reduced dependence on reticulated electricity, reduced emissions from motor vehicles and improved waste avoidance.

 

Social

 

By investing in sustainable projects Council will be setting a positive example for the community and be better able to promote sustainability principles throughout the shire.

 

Economic

 

Implementation of infrastructure and programs with improved efficiencies and more sustainable long term benefits will result in an overall benefit to the economic performance of Council’s operations.

 

Risk

 

 


FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

No direct impact is anticipated as any funds provided by WaSIP are additional to Council’s existing work program.  There may be flow on benefits where through installation of more efficient infrastructure through this program future maintenance expenditure may be reduced.

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Funds sourced from Department of Environment and Heritage, no requirement to use working funds.

 

 

 

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.


General Purpose Committee                                                                                         16 November 2011

Director of Engineering Services Report

ITEM 11.4    SF1092            161111         Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

AUTHOR/ENQUIRIES:     Paul Gallagher, Director Engineering Services         

 

Summary:

 

This report provides Council with the draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate.  In accordance with Council’s direction, the draft Plan of Management was provided to Councilors for their comment in advance of the November Council meeting and the document has been amended to reflect the comments received.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

1        That Council endorse the  draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate and place the document on public exhibition for a period of 28 days seeking public comment.

 

2        That Council receive a further report on the draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate at the completion of the public exhibition period.

 

 

OPTIONS:

 

Adopt the draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate and place the document on public exhibition.

 

Further amend the draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate before placing the document on public exhibition

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

The landowner of the adjacent property, Lot 63 DP 1058432, approached Council with a proposal for a boundary adjustment to enable a land swap between the Council reserve land and the rural land within Lot 63. Council resolved to proceed with the Draft LEP (Amendment No. 62) on the 20 April 2006 and Council received an authorisation to issue a Section 65 Certificate on 7 July 2006, and exhibited the draft plan from 25 August 2006 to 22 September 2006. The Draft LEP was for the rezoning of the land to be exchanged and reclassification of the open space land.

 

The land was categorised as community land (Natural Area, Bushland) on 4 May 1995 and was dedicated to Council as part of a developer contribution under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It was indicated at that time that the design for subsequent stages were preliminary and “minor variations in boundary location between lots and proposed public reserve may be necessary”.

 

Council were provided with a report from the Strategic Planner at the Ordinary Meeting held 7 July 2011 on the results of the public hearing of the Planning Proposal for Nambucca Local Environmental Plan (NLEP) 2010 Amendment Number 1.

 

The planning proposal reclassified a parcel of land from community land to operational land being; Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road Kingsworth Estate. Council resolved on the 7 July 2011 “to proceed with the reclassification of community land to operational land for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate and that a Plan of Management for the reserve within Kingsworth Estate be prepared by Engineering Services”

 

In anticipation that the reclassification gazettal notification will occur potentially in November, a Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate was prepared and provided to Councilors for comment In accordance with Council’s direction, The comments received are attached and the draft document has been amended to reflect the comments received

 

 

CONSULTATION:

 

The initial draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth was provided to Councilors for their comment in advance of the November Council meeting and the document has been amended to reflect the comments received

 

The document will be placed on public exhibition seeking comment on the draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

 

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT:

 

Environment

There are environmental implications associated the management of the reserve.

 

Social

There are no social implications associated with this report.

 

Economic

There are economic implications associated with this report

 

Risk

The are risk implications associated with the management of the reserve in which a risk assessment and signage audit is to be undertaken which will determine whether fencing is required what signage will be erected

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Direct and indirect impact on current and future budgets

 

There are no financial impacts on councils budget associated with this report for the 2011/12 budget.

 

Consideration will be required for future budgets for maintenance of the area, erection of signage and potential fencing of the dam associated with risk assessment and signage audit

 

Source of fund and any variance to working funds

 

Not applicable.

 

Attachments:

1View

31174/2011 - Comments from Councillors

 

2View

26765/2011 - DRAFT Plan of Management

 

3View

 - Circularised Document - Draft Plan of Management showing track changes

 

  


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

Comments from Councillors in regard to Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road Kingsworth Estate

 

Page Number

Proposed Changes/Comments/Questions

Staff Response

1

 

Background

·     The 1st and 3rd par appear to be in conflict ie ‘[the landowner of the adjacent property] approached Council with a proposal...’ and ‘Council sought the land exchange and reclassification’.

 

No change made to the 1st paragraph as the property owner instigated the proposal (extract from the consultants report)

 

Amend the 4th paragraph to read ‘Council concurred with  the land exchange and reclassification’.

 

·     3rd par refers to the lack of legal access to Old Coast road fro Florence Wilmont Drive but it is unclear how this issue relates to the land exchange.  Does the exchange create a legal vehicle access from Florence Wilmont Drive?

 

Correct – creates legal access -The existing access way between Lots 5 and 6 Florence Wilmont Drive is suitable for pedestrian or bicycle access only and is not suitable for vehicular access to the dam within the reserve (vehicular access is required to collect water for emergency drought situations and fire fighting)

 

Amend Council concurred with  the land exchange and reclassification to enable Legal access to the reserve. There is no suitable legal access from the end of Florence Wilmont Drive to Old Coast Road (as the existing accessway between Lots 5 and 6 Florence Wilmont Drive is suitable for pedestrian (delete access) or bicycle access only. (delete but is not) Council require (delete suitable for vehicular)  access to the dam within the reserve (delete is required in for emergency drought situations and for (delete other means).fire fighting purposes

 

·      This par also refers to the dam but the map on p2 does not show the dam and other features are either unmarked or unclear ie clear lot numbers, Old Coast Road etc.  A clearer map would improve readability.

Maps will be amended.

1

General Description

·     1st par refers to the plan applying to the community land in the category of Natural Bushland and that this land is part Lot 40, but the map does not clearly depict Part Lot 40.

 

Maps will be amended.

·     Last par refers to old LEP zones.

 

Reference amended (Heather can you speak to planning to clarity)

2

Classification Of Land

·     3rd par – I think emergency fire fighting was also part of the emergency use planned for.

Amend - or emergency access for water in times of drought and for water to be used for fire fighting purposes or as a dust suppressant at other times.

2

Owner of Land

·     Should specify what land NSC owns.

Amend - Nambucca Shire Council is the owner of the land. Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

4

table

Landscape character – means of achievement

‘Lop trees that are hazardous to users...’ would be more appropriate in a separate category called ‘Public safety’

No Amendment proposed – constant format with other M/ment plans

question

Re public safety – will there be public access to the dam? This is a high risk aspect which will need careful consideration.

A risk assessment is to be undertaken which will determine whether fencing is required as an interim signage will be erected

4

table

Trees with termites provide an important food source for many native fauna species such as echidnas and are a normal part of a bushland ecosystem.  They should not be removed, unless they are in immediate proximity to private property vulnerable to termite damage and it can be shown that the termites pose a problem. This action is not appropriate for the ‘Maintain the natural flora’ objective section and would be better placed under a separate objective target eg ‘minimise impacts to neighbouring properties’. 

No Amendment proposed – constant format with other M/ment plans

 

Agree with comment – however under Council’s risk management and insurance if it can be demonstrated that termites pose a problem to other adjoining infrastructure (ie housing)  from a tree on council land, the liability is on council to treat the termites 

4

table

Needs new target of ‘Fauna Protection’ with means being (preferably) No Dogs in the reserve but at the very least only dogs on leashes. 

Appropriate wording should be included in the access signs referred to on page 5

No Amendment proposed – constant format with other M/ment plans

 

Will be considered in the signage audit in accordance with Council’s risk management procedures

General comment

Page numbers please

Page numbers included on revised document

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

 

 

 

 

PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

 

NATURAL AREAS, BUSHLAND

 

Part Lot 40 DP 711098

Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

                                                     Nambucca Shire Council

                                             P O Box 177

                                             MACKSVILLE  NSW  2447

 

 

Adopted by Council ## / ## / 2011


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

 

 

PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

 

NATURAL AREAS,

BUSHLAND

Part Lot 40 DP 711098

Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

BACKGROUND

 

The landowner of the adjacent property, (Lot 63 DP 1058432), approached Council with a proposal for a boundary adjustment to enable a land swap between the Council reserve land and the rural land within Lot 63.

 

Council resolved to proceed with the Draft LEP (Amendment No. 62) on the 20 April 2006 and Council received an authorisation to issue a Section 65 Certificate on 7 July 2006, and exhibited the draft plan from 25 August 2006 to 22 September 2006. The Draft LEP was for the rezoning of the land to be exchanged and reclassification of the open space land.

 

The land was categorised as community land (Natural Area, Bushland) on 4 May 1995 and was dedicated to Council as part of a developer contribution under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It was indicated at that time that the design for subsequent stages were preliminary and “minor variations in boundary location between lots and proposed public reserve may be necessary”.

 

Council concurred with the land exchange and reclassification to enable legal access to the reserve. There is no suitable legal access from the end of Florence Wilmont Drive to Old Coast Road as the existing access way between Lots 5 and 6 Florence Wilmont Drive is suitable for pedestrian or bicycle access only. Council require access to the dam within the reserve for the purpose of emergency drought situations, water for dust suppression and for fire fighting purposes.

 

 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

 

This plan applies to the community land in the category of Natural Area, Bushland.  It is intended to cover the land known as Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate.

 

The subject land is located in Nambucca Heads at the western end of Florence Wilmont Drive. The land is adjacent to an informal intersection with Old Coast Road. The land is located at the western extremity of the Kingsworth Estate Rural Residential Release Area.

 

The site is located at the western end of Kingsworth Estate and adjoins land predominately zoned R5 Large Lot Residential.

 

 

 

CLASSIFICATION OF LAND

 

The land known as Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate is categorised as community land. The sub-category is Natural Area, Bushland.

 

The proposal requiring the reclassification of the land is the result of a proposed boundary alteration; a land swap between the rural land and open space land. The exchange of land will result in a nett increase in the reserve of 8,940 m2; 4,960 m2 of reserve is proposed to be zoned for rural residential purposes and 1.39 hectares of rural land is proposed to be rezoned for open space purposes.

 

The proposal will increase the street frontage of the reserve from 60.57 m to 242.67 m and will allow a dedicated road to the existing dam to be used for emergency access for water in times of drought and for water to be used for fire fighting purposes or as a dust suppressant at other times.


 

Pre-existing zone

New Zone

 

 

OWNER OF LAND

 

Nambucca Shire Council is the owner of the land.  Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road Kingsworth Estate.

 

 

TRUST, ESTATE, INTEREST, DEDICATION, CONDITION, RESTRICTION OR COVENANT APPLYING TO THE LAND

 

There is no trust, estate, dedication, condition, restriction or covenant applying to the land known as Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate.

 

 

OWNERS APPROVAL OF MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

Nambucca Shire Council is the owner of the land.

 

 

LEASEHOLD DETAILS

 

There are no leasehold details associated with the land known as Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate. 

 

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

NAMBUCCA SHIRE COUNCIL

 

PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

 

NATURAL AREA, BUSHLAND

Part Lot 40 DP 711098

Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

OBJECTIVE/PERFORMANCE TARGETS

MEANS OF ACHIEVEMENT

MANNER OF ASSESSMENT

Landscape Character

Maintain the natural flora

Reduce the invasion of urban weeds

Annual inspection

 

 

Control noxious weeds

Annual inspection

 

 

Maintain existing native plants. Replant with local indigenous plants

Annual inspection

 

 

Lop trees that are hazardous to users and adjoining private land.  (Do not lop to restore views or that shade properties)

Annual inspection

 

 

Remove trees with termite infestations

Annual inspection

Facilities

Limit construction of facilities on reserves

Limit furniture to seats where needed by walkers.  No toilets, garbage bins, tables or BBQ’s

Annual inspection

Paths

Access paths are to be non-intrusive

Use natural materials such as gravel, soil, bark on pathways and timber formed steps where necessary

Identify high use areas by pedestrians

Unauthorised Use

No intrusion is permitted of private use such as gardens, boats, cars, caravan, rubbish etc

Existing intrusions are identified and notices to remove are issued

Annual inspection

Bushfire Protection

Litter not be allowed to accumulate to the stage of being a bush fire hazard

Slash block or control burn according to Bush Fire Management Plan

Annual inspection

 

 

 

Prepare Bush Fire Management Plan

 


 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

OBJECTIVE/PERFORMANCE TARGETS

MEANS OF ACHIEVEMENT

MANNER OF ASSESSMENT

Management and Administration

An efficient and practical administration and management system with clear areas of responsibility and a well defined method of obtaining

Employment of staff with horticultural training.  Provide sufficient funds for correct maintenance practice

The reserve is to maintain its natural environment. The park superintendent to develop a program to maintain the reserve at a reasonable standard

Soil and Drainage

To maintain a surface runoff system compatible with the bushland

Use natural drainage lines, pipelines, dish drains, grass drains

The reserve is to maintain its natural environment

 

 

Control runoff from adjacent development

Annual inspections

 

 

Control runoff from road drainage

No evidence of siltation or water borne rubbish

 

 

Prevent and control erosion

Annual inspection

 

 

Keep gullies free of debris

Annual inspection

Fencing

Protect areas from damage by vehicles, pedestrians and intrusion

Identification of fencing locations to ensure vehicles are kept out of the reserve

Annual inspection

Parking

Restrict parking to defined areas

Identify the need for parking to ensure vehicles are kept out of the reserve

Annual inspection

Signs

Identify as public land

Erect signs at access points

Install signage in 2012

Utilities

To allow the installation of utility services

Permit the construction of underground pipelines for stormwater, sewerage and water supply

Plans and completed works to be approved by the Manager responsible for Recreation

 

 

Permit surface drainage of stormwater

 

 

 

Permit overhead or underground electricity supply

 


General Purpose Committee - 16 November 2011

Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

 

 

 

 

CIRCULARISED DOCUMENT

 

 

Draft Plan of Management for Part Lot 40 DP 711098 Old Coast Road, Kingsworth Estate

 

 

 

Showing Track Changes